O i actually meant that Kill Bill is in the top 20 haha. Grindhouse is good but nothing to worth worshiping. Pulp Fiction is his claim to fame but KB is his most personal film. Its his loveletter to kung-fu cinema and it is the most rewatchable of all his films. It comes down to a matter of taste I guess. If you want further reasons as to why many pple find believe its such an enjoyable film head over to rottentomatoes and search Kill Bill. Its pretty clear that it has a large following.
His “love letter” to kung fu cinema?
Did kung fu cinema ask for one? Was he the one to do it? Did kung fu cinema NEED one?
It’s like Peter Jackson boxing outside his weight and sending a “love letter” to King Kong.
Contemporary film is in a rut and a good part of it is derivative directors sending these “love letters”.
haha ^
I whole-heartedly agree with Sekzee on this one. Kill Bill is pure style!
Kill Bill is pure ball sweat!
I like Tarentino, he makes entertaining films.
so many people comment on how he isn’t original, or he “steals” scenes/ideas from other movies. what you don’t realize is that it’s no different then a director that makes a movie based on a book. think about. we don’t call them out on it. just because QT doesn’t have a “based on a…”, people give him flak? think about how many original screenplays and stories that are just flat out bad. i don’t think that’s very valid criticism to use against him. i could be reading this all wrong though and my intention is not to offend or even consider anybody’s opinion wrong. i just don’t think he should be criticized for that.
i personally think QT is great, in all aspects of filmmaking. it doesn’t matter if you think he steals ideas or not, in the end he makes original films. meaning, he may take some ideas, but in the end he makes them his own. artists have been doing this since forever and it’s not considered wrong. some of his film’s dialogue is the best i’ve heard/seen out of all the movies that have come out in the past 10-15 years or so. i mean, i could go on and on. i could talk about how pulp fiction is the poster-child for post-modern art and how it’s a perfect film about films/hollywood, etc. all i am saying is if QT was some no-name, czech-republic (or any other country) filmmaker, he would be considered a genius by many on this site.
He did Pulp Fiction. The most entertaining film of all time.
the best example of an american poseur…stealing for the sake of art..
ARI I know this post is a little late and I apologize for taking so long for my rebuttal from page 3. You are part of the cult I mentioned. I’m ignorant and closed minded because I don’t like pulp fiction all that much. I must not understand it. You talk about the importance of qt but what is that? After Pulp Fiction many shitty copycats started and are still coming to this day. I don’t see what was so original and brilliant about it in the first place. Explain it to me. Enlighten me. I saw nothing in Pulp that I have not seen in a film that predates it. Pulp Fiction is tedious to me, so is Vol. 2 and the first half of Death Proof. Boring! That’s me, if you like it great but don’t start with personal attacks when we are talking about opinions.
“I saw nothing in Pulp that I have not seen in a film that predates it.”
you can say that about most films in one way or another, certainly in the postmodern era. and isnt the legion of copycats after “pulp” proof of its originality and brilliance? after all, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. people usually dont imitate whats ineffectual.
No it’s not. If it makes money people are going to copy it e4ven if it’s a copy itself. Look at all the vampire movies coming out now because of how well Twilight did. Does that make Twilight a brilliant film. I am not saying he took too much and pulp should be dismissed as a rip-off entirely, but that it is just not that good to begin with. That makes most of the copies even worse. I don’t really enjoy it and see nothing great about it other than Sam Jackson. Again this is my opinion. When I said that I have seen everything before, it was just to say most who like the film talk about it’s originality. What is that if I have seen it all before?
Pulp fiction was a classic, but I don’t think he’ll ever make a film that comes close to it. Every other film he has made has been pop cultuer, and not classic.
but “pulp fiction” wasnt a high concept movie that people could copy to make money quickly. it wasnt a mainstream hollywood film. people copied it for aesthetic reasons, not financial motivations.
and isnt it a little facile to constantly attack tarantino for “copying” when he does it with such transparency and purpose? it comes to the same thing as attacking vampire films for featuring vampires. on that subject, should we attack “from dusk till dawn” for being unoriginal and using vampires? (granted tarantino didnt direct it)
tarantino is a genre filmmaker (once upon a time that was considered a virtue, even after it was considered a vice before that). like all great genre filmmakers, he plays by the rules. if sam jackson is great in “pulp”, its only because he has a great screenwriter and a great director behind him.
I enjoy his films. He is good at what he does. I’ve already said this. I do have an issue with so much borrowed from other films. Tributes and homages are part of filmmaking, for some, but for Tarantino, it’s a huge part of what he does. He says so and we all know this going in. I can’t watch what he does and not see dozens of other films along with hearing dozens of other scores. In a way, it takes away from what he’s trying to do, not adding to it. I’m trying to get lost in an escapist film and not think of anything. I just want to be entertained for an hour, maybe two. And yet, here I am with my mind churning over this reference and that tribute and this homage and so on. His films remind me of a word puzzle with dozens of hidden words turning up that really aren’t very well hidden at all.
You remember that great scene in Pulp Fiction where Thurman’s character overdoses and Travolta has to ram the adrenaline shot in her heart?
Yea well that whole scene is stolen word for word from a story told in Scorsese’s documentary American Boy. Word for word even down to the medical book they use as a reference.
See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbV-CHkw9kU @ 2:33
D.2. INCHES. I have no idea what your post above is in reference to? What cult are you talking about? I’m certainly not part of any cult of Tarantino (I like his work from the 90s and can’t stand anything since). I never said you were ignorant or closed minded because you don’t like Pulp Fiction. I have no problem with people who hate Pulp Fiction. I just can’t understand the logic of someone who trashes Pulp Fiction but will defend Kill Bill (or trash Kill Bill, PT 2 and defend Kill Bill, PT 1). I also didn’t personally attack you. I just raised a question of what generation you belonged to in order to understand your perspective better (and such comments that you saw nothing in Pulp that you had not seen in a film that predates it). Blaming Pulp Fiction for “shitty copycats” is pretty pointless. Or for saying Tarantino is just a “rip off” artist. For example, on the previous page you repeat the tired talking point that QT ripped off another film for Reservoir Dogs. No matter that he took elements from about a half dozen films (from the Killing to the Taking of Pelham 1-2-3) at a time when those kinds of films weren’t being referenced at all, I think you are referring to City on Fire. City on Fire is a terrible film and although QT lifts shots almost directly from the Ringo Lam film, there’s no comparison between the two – City on Fire is terrible.
Bobby Wise is right on what he writes above about QT’s “copying”. Or do the same people who criticize QT’s copying also criticize Godard’s copying? Does it make you upset that Godard lifted an entire scene from The Dutchman in Masculin, Feminin?
One great performance does not make QT a great writer/director. Nobody said vampires should not be in vampire movies. That is way too much of a generalization and not at all what I said. Pulp Fiction got a lot of people to make independent films and that’s great but a large number of those tried to make PF pt.2 and that’s not so good and is the exact same thing as my example.
I grew up in the nineties ARI. I watched a lot of action flicks, westerns, war and gory horror films growing up. If you can not tell that there is a huge difference in the different volumes of Kill Bill then you must have watched a different cut or something. Vol.1 was nothing but action and Vol. 2 was very very slow with a very very bad ending. I have not seen city of fire but it is the film I was talking about. I think it is great when a filmmaker references films that have influenced(not the whole film though) him but referencing and lifting a shot directly from another film is wrong.
I have not seen that film. I have only seen a handful of Godard films, but yes if he took a entire scene then it upsets me and makes me think less of Godard. I don’t like that unless it’s a very good spoof.
I’ll have to go with the nay. Sure he’s talented, but he’s walking the fine line between sincere hommage and outright cliché. I liked Jackie Brown but his latter efforts are quite poor. And the upcoming Inglorious Basterds seems to be the bottom of the pit for his career, ate least in my humble opinion.
I’m going Yay. I’ve enjoyed most of his movies (didn’t see Grindhouse) and Jackie Brown, in particular, is a favorite of mine. With a decent amount of help from Elmore Leonard, Tarantino’s characters actually came alive in that one.
how can you think its great when a filmmaker references films that have influenced him, but not great when that reference comes directly in some manner? you cant have it both ways. but dont worry. theres no ethical conundrum about referencing. as godard said, “if you want to say something, theres only one thing to do: say it.”
i didnt want to bring godard into the conversation, but he did the exact same thing that tarantino did in his early career. not saying that tarantino is his equal, just that he shouldnt be attacked for his methods.
I love Tarrantino , like I love Burger King. His style off post modernism is great but it has become the junk food of the movie screen because its just recycling ideas from other movies.
Yea. and the funny thing is Pulp Fiction isn’t even in my top 3 of his.
Used to be a nayer. Now I’m a yayer. Thin JACKIE BROWN and BASTERDS are fantastic and look forward to rewatching as much as possible.
both yay and nay, yay cause he excells writing characters-dialogue and pitch-perfect casting.
I also like that he goes abroad to make a film like Basterds or Kill Bill with foreign actors on foreign language.
nay would be cause of his constant lifting of ideas, shots, even music from other films.
Yay. Because Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction are two of the best films of that decade. Kill Bill is amazing and Basterds while extremely enjoyable is a bit overrated in my opinion. Death Proof has it’s moments but overall is 3 out of 5 kind of movie. Reservoir Dogs is cool but I can’t get over the blatant name rip-off the original Taking of Pelham 123. His bit of Sin City was entertaining enough and I still need to see Four Rooms. Overall Tarantino deserves his Pop Culture status.
I liked Kill Bill and Jackie Brown even though they’re too long. I really liked David Carradine in Kill Bill. I hated Basterds and Death Proof. Not that interested in revisiting Dogs or Pulp Fiction.
His movies generally get better reviews and more awards than they deserve.
His personality as an interviewee and the way he puts himself out there in pop culture is annoying, but its not really relevant.
Ari
Uh, SEKZEE, is not the whole point of this thread to pass opinion on Tarantino? Or are you one of those people who feels compelled to respond “that’s just your opinion” whenever anyone makes a statement that you disagree with?
What’s self-indulgent about Reservoir Dogs? It’s a small genre film. Pulp may be ambitious but I don’t think it’s self-indulgent either (it’s not overly long and drawn out the way Kill Bill is for what it’s trying to tell). And Jackie Brown is a nice little film as well. As for Death Proof being one of the top 20 films of the decade, well, to each their own. Do you consider it as an individual film or together with the Grindhouse package?